|
Opinion: The Hindu
10 April 2001
by Gail Omvedt
MR. ANDRE BETEILLE has argued two major
points in his article, ``Race and Caste'' (The Hindu, March 10).
One is that racism was based on false science; there are no
genetically and biologically different races among human beings.
The other is that caste has nothing to do with race, and
therefore to include caste in a discussion of racism is
erroneous, however politically useful it may seem to some
people.In fact his two points contradict one another. Neither
caste as a social system nor ``racism'' are based on actual
biological differences among human beings. Both, though, are
systems of discrimination that attribute ``natural'' or essential
qualities to people born in specific social groups. In other
words, while caste has nothing to do with ``race'', the
justifications of caste discrimination have a lot to do with the
social phenomenon of ``racism''.
As Mr. Beteille has argued, ``race'' in
terms of naturally different species does not exist among human
beings. The science of genetics is now strikingly clear on this -
there are no significant genetic differences among socially
identifiable groups of people; the genetic variation among
individuals is by far greater than any among any society group.
But, this is only to say that ``racism'' as a social phenomenon
is based on a lie; it does not provide us an analysis of why that
lie has come to exist.
Racism, which is the attribution of
``natural'' characteristics to groups of human beings, came into
full-scale existence in the last few centuries, largely in
connection with imperialism. In order to justify the brutalities
of conquest and subjugation, the non-white peoples conquered by
the colonial powers had to be viewed, and were viewed, as less
than human. The new biological sciences and even genetics came in
handy for this purpose. Suddenly skin color and the shape of
heads could be taken as representing some inherent biological and
genetic features which had larger implications. Dominance was
asserted to be the result of the ``natural'' (biological,
genetic) superiority of white European peoples, who had the
god-given charge of caring for the ``lesser'' peoples of the
world.
This connection of racism with recent
European-based imperialism is not to say that cultures of
non-white peoples, whether Chinese or Japanese or the Africans
themselves, have lacked systems of discrimination similar to
``racism''. It is simply that the European form has been dominant
in the world over most of the last centuries, and has been linked
with the strongest forms of oppression.
Racism, or ideas of innate, biological
superiority and inferiority is, as Mr. Beteille himself has
noted, a very ``plastic'' concept. All kinds of ``races'' have
been postulated; class differences themselves were even
interpreted at times in terms of race. It was quite natural,
then, that when the British conquered India at the time of the
full-fledged flourishing of racist concepts, when they were
puzzled by the phenomenon of caste, that they should interpret it
in terms of race. Thus, linguistic similarities among many of the
languages of India and European languages were linked to groups
such as the Aryans, identified as racial types, and using the
notion of an ``Aryan conquest'', the argument was made that the
upper three varnas were descended from the Indo- European
``Aryans'', and the Shudras, Adivasis and Dalits from non-Aryan
indigenous people. In fact, racism in India has been as much a
lie as elsewhere; the millennia of mixing of linguistic-ethnic
groups, Aryan, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-Asiatic, has
resulted in little clear distinction between caste categories.
Ambedkar himself was categoric in rejecting the ``Aryan theory''
or the racial theory of caste. Caste was not a racial division
but a division of races, he said (still using the category);
Punjabi Brahmans and Punjabi Untouchables were ethnically the
same, and Tamil Brahmans and Tamil Untouchables were not racially
different.
However, what has to be answered is why this
``Aryan theory'' proved so attractive to Indians themselves, why
interpreting caste in terms of race has been so pervasive. The
reason is precisely because of its resonance with indigenous
themes of caste. For caste, like race, is based on the notion
that socially defined groups of people have inherent, natural
qualities or ``essences'' that assign them to social positions,
make them fit for specific duties and occupations; it is their
swadharma to carry out these duties. The word jati has been
applied to species of plants and animals; and quite naturally
many Indians thought of human castes as similar to such species.
Thus, when the Buddha sought to refute the notion of
birth-determined caste, two and a half millennia ago, he referred
to the basic physical similarity of all human beings.
According to the Sutta-Nipata, when asked by
Vasettha, a Brahman, to settle a debate between him and a friend
about whether it is ``birth'' or ``life'' that makes a Brahman,
the Buddha replies that whereas grass and trees, insects, snakes,
fish and birds have diverse species - he uses the term jati -
among humans this is not so. ``Men alone show not that nature
stamps them as different jatis. They differ not in hair, head,
ears or eyes, in mouth or nostrils, not in eyebrows, lips,
throat, shoulders, belly, buttocks, back or chest.'' He then goes
on to say that one who lives by keeping cows is a farmer or
kassako; on who lives by handicrafts is a tradesman or sippiko;
one who lives by selling merchandise is a vanijjo; one who lives
by services done for hire is a pessiko or wage-worker; one who
lives by taking things not his is a robber; one who lives by
warfare is a yodhajivao or soldier; one who lives by sacrificial
rites is a yajako or priest; one who rules is a monarch or raja.
This denial of innate, inborn differences between jatis
contrasted with arguments in the Manusmriti that, for example,
Shudras were by essence, by nature, designed to serve, that they
were created as servants. Thus, because such notions of
``natural'' differences lay behind justification of the varnas,
it is perhaps not so surprising that when the British put forward
their racial theory of caste, it was accepted by so many Indians
also. The original theological justification - varnas created out
of the original Purusha - could be replaced by a pseudo-
scientific justification. Thus, caste is not based on race; but
the theories justifying caste, or caste as an ideological
construct, were similar enough to racism to allow a racial
interpretation of caste. (It has to be added also that many of
the Indian elite, including Gandhi, used sociologically themes of
a harmoniously functioning society to justify an idealised varna
system).
The fact that the United Nations is holding
a conference on racism is not a matter of perpetuating notions of
``race''. Indeed, significant progress in most countries has been
made over the last decade in fighting existing forms of racism,
caste discrimination and similar social forms. This is true also
in India. Yet it would be foolhardy to say that racism or caste
discrimination do not exist, whether we are talking about the
United States, South Africa itself, Japan where an indigenous
group similar to Untouchables, the Burakumin, have been
organising, or India. Racism and casteism cannot be annihilated
by ignoring their existence. Policies to eradicate these social
evils require full consciousness of their extent, knowledge of
their various expressions, and will to take public action. In a
global age, fighting racism, caste discrimination and similar
phenomenon means global alliances and international as well as
national policies. There is no reason for a government
representing the Indian people to fight this; if the government
does so, that means it is representing very different interests.
Have your say...
Posted on 2001-07-16
|
